Emery, best known for helping bring down the city’s Board of Estimate a decade ago, and Singer have been in court for more than three years arguing over custody of their 8-year-old son.

But Singer says the battle isn’t a fight against Emery – it’s a fight for her son.

“I feel like I just want to do the best I can for my son. I don’t know what we’re doing” in court, Singer told The Post last week, in her first comments about the case since it began.

“I never could have imagined all of this happening,” she said.

The actress’ marriage to Emery crumbled in 1996 – and touched off the seemingly endless divorce and custody case.

The two are due back in court before Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Martin Schoenfeld on Aug. 23. The judge – who was moved out of matrimonial court after just a year, but held on to the case – is expected to give his decision before Labor Day.

Fearing reprisals, Singer refused to characterize her husband, the judge or the way the case has been handled.

But her lawyer, Barry Levin, has claimed some of the judge’s decisions have been “suspect.”

“I think the judge, for whatever reason, seems to take out his frustrations with this case on Lori,” Levin said. “I’m just not sure that this judge hasn’t crossed the line of being objective.”

Emery said Schoenfeld “has devoted enormous amounts of careful time in trying to settle this case.

“I don’t know when his result is going to be but I hope it will be fair,” he said.

The judge refused to comment.

Based on documents obtained and reviewed by The Post – the press and the public are barred from the courtroom – Schoenfeld has made several comments and decisions that people close to Singer, as well as independent matrimonial legal experts, have questioned.

They include:

* The judge’s decision to slash Singer’s alimony, without a hearing after she recently filed a lawsuit claiming Emery cheated her of earnings as an actress. The judge ruled Singer’s suit damaged Emery’s law firm’s ability to earn.

Emery’s lawyer, Peter Bienstock said Singer’s suit is a “ridiculous, defamatory piece of garbage” and applauded the judge’s decision.

One matrimonial law expert, who asked not to be identified, said the decision would be “highly” reversible on appeal.

* The judge’s refusal to hear testimony from the couple’s marriage counselor about Singer’s allegations that Emery had been violent, because Emery cited patient-doctor privilege. Schoenfeld – who could have waived the privilege – said if the doctor didn’t have “firsthand” information about the claims, the testimony wasn’t relevant to the case.

Bienstock supported the judge’s decision not to allow the marriage counselor to testify about the allegations.

A matrimonial expert said the decision about the counselor’s testimony “was probably a reversible error.”

* The judge’s refusal to remove the law guardian after Singer’s lawyers objected. The law guardian, Jo Ann Douglas, lives in the same building as Emery’s aunt, Lori Berkowitz.

Douglas – who records indicate hasn’t met with the boy in several months – is also the law guardian for Perelman and Duff’s 4-year-old daughter.

Bienstock said last week that Singer’s objections to Douglas, because she lives in the same building as Emery’s aunt, was “ridiculous. We were not even aware that he had a relative in Ms. Douglas’ building until they raised it.”

A matrimonial expert said it’s “very tough” to have a guardian removed from a case.

* The judge’s decision to reserve judgment on whether he would meet with the couple’s son in his chambers – after noting earlier in the case, “I want to know when are [Singer and Emery] going to realize that this case isn’t about them . .. the only one who is protecting [their son’s] interest is me, I’m the only one who hasn’t met him.”

Levin claimed the judge has since given word that he’s decided not to meet with the youngster.

In closing arguments, Bienstock argued that it would put a “burden” on the youngster if the judge met with him.

Several matrimonial experts noted that it’s at the judge’s discretion, but said it seems “very odd” that the judge would not meet with the boy in a taped, in-chambers hearing in the case.

Court spokesman David Bookstaver would not respond to specifics of the case.

The battle began in January 1996, when, after a bitter fight in their New York home, Emery went skiing in Vail., Colo., and Singer took the boy to California, records show.

Emery went to court saying Singer had taken their child and refused to say when, or if, she planned to return. Singer testified Emery knew where she was. Their marriage counselor also testified that he knew she was coming back, and about when she was supposed to return.

Schoenfeld – who at the time was about a month into his year-long stint on the matrimonial bench – signed an unusual court order, that also had to be signed by a California judge, allowing Los Angeles cops to enter Singer’s home and turn the little boy over to his father.

When Singer and Emery returned, the judge awarded joint custody.

Singer said she wants Emery to have weekends and every other Wednesday with their son – and said she wants a “normal” schedule for her son.

“This has been devastating for my son,” Singer said.

Emery said he wants to continue the current arrangement of alternating weeks, contending the child “is thriving.”

Bienstock claimed the judge has “always encouraged” both sides to settle the case. Over the course of the case, records show, lawyers for both sides approached at least two settlement deals, but they crumbled.

Bienstock said that, while Emery is “resilient,” the case has “taken a toll” on him.

“It’s cost him a lot of money, it’s cost him a lot of time,” Bienstock said.